For those who are curious about the Newton Connection Railbus, Miles in Transit did a video on it.Looks like some last-minute changes to the schedules were made. Providence/Stoughton has the Wickford Junction shuttles changed to through trains, albeit still with a 10-minute dwell in Providence. And Worcester has a "Newton Connection RailBus" running Wellesley Farms-Riverside-Auburndale-West Newton-Newtonville-Newton Highlands to provide reverse-peak service to the Newton stations.
Waltham DPW...full-stop. They were required to install plastic pop-up posts on the centerline of the town-control roadways @ Elm+Moody in the original ratification of the Quiet Zone waiver from 2006, and did nothing. It's been out-of-compliance for 15 years, and the FRA finally called out the bullshit.Train Horn Back In Waltham Quiet Zone After Crossings Fail Federal Inspection
Thoughts? Where does the blame lie?
2006--when the McCarthy mayoral regime there was but a pup.Waltham DPW...full-stop. They were required to install plastic pop-up posts on the centerline of the town-control roadways @ Elm+Moody in the original ratification of the Quiet Zone waiver from 2006, and did nothing. It's been out-of-compliance for 15 years, and the FRA finally called out the bullshit.
The local municipality. We've learned that in West Medford: MBTA does the gates, the down does the street, which in our case (at Rt 16 and Canal St) is our our centerline reflector-barriers (cricket-paddle style flex posts) I think one time, for about a day they got too battered, the horn came back and the city went to the storeroom and got the replacements
They likewise were required to do that as part of the agreement securing the quiet zone. If a crossing is high-traffic enough, it's usually mandated that there be some sort of roadway structure to deter gate-evaders as an above-and-beyond for making the crossing quiet. Cambridge was prompt in installing those on Sherman in order to net the quiet zone when the time came. Quelle surprise...that one passed the recent inspection and isn't on the list of flunkers.Cambridge put in curbs to prevent drive-arounds on Sherman St, which seem to have weathered Masshole drivers better than any flex posts.
Wouldn't make any difference. Quad gate installations require the very same lane-divider treatment that the town refuses to do here. The far ends of the plastic gate arms are designed to snap off before they wreck the crossing machinery and thus aren't any major deterrent to a driver hellbent on cutting corners. It's the something in the roadway that leaves a scratch on your car for your attempt at illegal weaving that ends up serving the functional deterrent more than the gate arms. The town's refusal to act on the roadway treatment would be every bit as much disqualifying for the quiet order were there 4 gate arms instead of 2, and necessitate the same punitive horn show with every crossing. There's no mechanism for an unwilling town gov't to end-run its way to dumping all the burden on some other party.Are there plans to put in full four quadrant gates at Elm and Moody?
Tangentially, could they build those to accommodate a future second track without major work?
On a high-traffic artery, that's ruled case-by-case. It would be required at Elm/Moody, because without it motorcycles could split the proverbial uprights with impunity and probabilities dictate there'd be enough cheaters trying while the gates are in-process of coming down to result in some damaged gate arms (either that or incidences of re-cycling, as gate machinery is programmed to "wave" up and down if they encounter an obstruction on the way down). It's not required at Beaver St., where a "tri" gate does presently exist on the south side of the crossing to cover the cheat exploit from an abutting driveway bulb-out...but that's a much lower-volume road.No they don't.